4 ms·

>>the majority of the public want oversight of these sorts of professionals. The majority of the public wants whatever they are lobbied to believe they need. T

>>the majority of the public want oversight of these sorts of professionals. The majority of the public wants whatever they are lobbied to believe they need. The majority also supports the War on Drugs and criminalizing the sex trade, and for the same reason: fear tactics used to convince them that the mere option of doing an ostensibly harmful activity, is to the detriment of themselves and society at large, even though the activity would harm no one but the party engaged in it. Plenty of medical procedures could be done by nurses and other non-physician medical professionals, yet this entire option is barred to the public. There should be a free market, with consenting adults free to choose for themselves who to hire to perform services for them.

giantg2 5y ago
"The majority of the public wants whatever they are lobbied to believe they need." Ok, can you show me the lobbying that swayed their opinion on this topic then? If they are just gullible like you claim, then do you think these incapable people will have the capacity to choose well after removing license requirements for providers? "Plenty of medical procedures could be done by nurses and other non-physician medical professionals, yet this entire option is barred to the public." This is not banned at all. Physician assistants and nurse practitioners exist and can perform some medical procedures/tasks. Even pharmacists. Granted I've personally had some negative experiences with some PAs and try to choose actually physicians for most things. "There should be a free market, with consenting adults free to choose for themselves who to hire to perform services for them." That would be nice in many ways, but I can see a downside too. Once someone is found to be incompetent, fraudulent, and harmful, how would they be barred from the profession to prevent the issue from happening to others? Usually things like insurance and bonding are requirements to cover any issues for people in this and other licensed fields.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>Ok, can you show me the lobbying that swayed their opinion on this topic then? I only deduce it happens. I mean the lobbying happens in ordinary conversations like these, where people with a vested interest in gatekeeping argue it's in the public interest. I'm deducing it happens based simply on the incentives that exist for concentrated interests, in the form of insiders, to engage in it. It also manifests as major political representatives legitimizing said licensure, and rationalizing the principle behind it to the public, in exchange for support from insiders within the regulated industry. >>If they are just gullible like you claim, then do you think these incapable people will have the capacity to choose well after removing license requirements for providers? Yes, because people do far more research for personal consumer choices, where their level of knowledge has a substantial personal impact, than for political positions where their level of knowledge has a minimal impact, or minimal likelihood of impact, on their personal life. >>That would be nice in many ways, but I can see a downside too. Once someone is found to be incompetent, fraudulent, and harmful, how would they be barred from the profession to prevent the issue from happening to others? I don't see how the absence of licensure would prevert courts from issuing restrictions on individuals found guilty of criminal misconduct. The government requiring a conviction in court before restricting someone's right to free association is how it should be. That is what the principles of a free society demand.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "I don't see how the absence of licensure would prevent courts from issuing restrictions on individuals found guilty of criminal misconduct." That might cover fraud, but that doesn't cover incompetence or other harm. "The government requiring a conviction in court before restricting someone's right to free association is how it should be." That is one way to look at it, yet is is not how the legal system works today. The courts have determined that licensure is a lawful restriction on association. "Yes, because people do far more research for personal consumer choices, where their level of knowledge has a substantial personal impact, than for political positions where their level of knowledge has a minimal impact, or minimal likelihood of impact, on their personal life." It may have a more direct impact, but that does not mean they will have better outcomes. For one, you will be taken to the nearest hospital in an emergency - you have no choice. The important part is "their level of knowledge". Most people do not possess the level of knowledge to evaluate a medical professional and the information given to them by that medical professional. Most people accept it as truth and do not care to do any research on credible sites like PubMed.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      >>That might cover fraud, but that doesn't cover incompetence or other harm. If someone acts non-fradulently, and honestly conveys their lack of experience, their lack of competency in carrying out the service is no one's fault than the consumer. >>The courts have determined that licensure is a lawful restriction on association. I'm arguing this legal framework, not saying that's how it currently is. >>It may have a more direct impact, but that does not mean they will have better outcomes. For one, you will be taken to the nearest hospital in an emergency - you have no choice. Only 8% of healthcare spending is on emergency services, which can and should have government involvement to avoid abuse of geography-based monopoly by service providers. But the remaining ~92% of healthcare spending is made through non-time-sensitive decisions where an individual has plenty of to assess the market options. >>Most people do not possess the level of knowledge to evaluate a medical professional and the information given to them by that medical professional. Just as people delegate this analysis to a cadre of politicians in the current monopolistic system, people would be able to delegate analysis to reputable experts in a free market.

giantg2 5y ago

"The majority of the public wants whatever they are lobbied to believe they need." Ok, can you show me the lobbying that swayed their opinion on this topic then? If they are just gullible like you claim, then do you think these incapable people will have the capacity to choose well after removing license requirements for providers? "Plenty of medical procedures could be done by nurses and other non-physician medical professionals, yet this entire option is barred to the public." This is not banned at all. Physician assistants and nurse practitioners exist and can perform some medical procedures/tasks. Even pharmacists. Granted I've personally had some negative experiences with some PAs and try to choose actually physicians for most things. "There should be a free market, with consenting adults free to choose for themselves who to hire to perform services for them." That would be nice in many ways, but I can see a downside too. Once someone is found to be incompetent, fraudulent, and harmful, how would they be barred from the profession to prevent the issue from happening to others? Usually things like insurance and bonding are requirements to cover any issues for people in this and other licensed fields.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>Ok, can you show me the lobbying that swayed their opinion on this topic then? I only deduce it happens. I mean the lobbying happens in ordinary conversations like these, where people with a vested interest in gatekeeping argue it's in the public interest. I'm deducing it happens based simply on the incentives that exist for concentrated interests, in the form of insiders, to engage in it. It also manifests as major political representatives legitimizing said licensure, and rationalizing the principle behind it to the public, in exchange for support from insiders within the regulated industry. >>If they are just gullible like you claim, then do you think these incapable people will have the capacity to choose well after removing license requirements for providers? Yes, because people do far more research for personal consumer choices, where their level of knowledge has a substantial personal impact, than for political positions where their level of knowledge has a minimal impact, or minimal likelihood of impact, on their personal life. >>That would be nice in many ways, but I can see a downside too. Once someone is found to be incompetent, fraudulent, and harmful, how would they be barred from the profession to prevent the issue from happening to others? I don't see how the absence of licensure would prevert courts from issuing restrictions on individuals found guilty of criminal misconduct. The government requiring a conviction in court before restricting someone's right to free association is how it should be. That is what the principles of a free society demand.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "I don't see how the absence of licensure would prevent courts from issuing restrictions on individuals found guilty of criminal misconduct." That might cover fraud, but that doesn't cover incompetence or other harm. "The government requiring a conviction in court before restricting someone's right to free association is how it should be." That is one way to look at it, yet is is not how the legal system works today. The courts have determined that licensure is a lawful restriction on association. "Yes, because people do far more research for personal consumer choices, where their level of knowledge has a substantial personal impact, than for political positions where their level of knowledge has a minimal impact, or minimal likelihood of impact, on their personal life." It may have a more direct impact, but that does not mean they will have better outcomes. For one, you will be taken to the nearest hospital in an emergency - you have no choice. The important part is "their level of knowledge". Most people do not possess the level of knowledge to evaluate a medical professional and the information given to them by that medical professional. Most people accept it as truth and do not care to do any research on credible sites like PubMed.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    >>That might cover fraud, but that doesn't cover incompetence or other harm. If someone acts non-fradulently, and honestly conveys their lack of experience, their lack of competency in carrying out the service is no one's fault than the consumer. >>The courts have determined that licensure is a lawful restriction on association. I'm arguing this legal framework, not saying that's how it currently is. >>It may have a more direct impact, but that does not mean they will have better outcomes. For one, you will be taken to the nearest hospital in an emergency - you have no choice. Only 8% of healthcare spending is on emergency services, which can and should have government involvement to avoid abuse of geography-based monopoly by service providers. But the remaining ~92% of healthcare spending is made through non-time-sensitive decisions where an individual has plenty of to assess the market options. >>Most people do not possess the level of knowledge to evaluate a medical professional and the information given to them by that medical professional. Just as people delegate this analysis to a cadre of politicians in the current monopolistic system, people would be able to delegate analysis to reputable experts in a free market.